WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

In 1976 I have Borg with 6 tournament wins and 11 losses and Connors with 12 tournament wins and 6 losses. If these stats are accurate then I see Connors as no.1 on his own for 1976 also considering his wins over Borg that year.

Very unspecific and subjective. Do we know for sure why Connors did not play in Dallas? Do we know for sure that his game was not up to par at the time?

Click to expand...

To play Dallas, you had to accumulate enough points on the WCT circuit to finish in the top 8. It wasn't an invitation only event or something.
Look at Connors' WCT schedule that year, he didn't play many events. He didn't qualify for Dallas in '74 or '75 either.

I have a collection of WCT highlight shows(narrated by Charlton Heston), they explain all this.

I found it rather interesting that they were so concerned by the endless rallies that Borg, Vilas, Solomon, etc were engaging in that they actually had a shot clock on court that year('76) to ensure quicker play.

Still Borg & Vilas managed to have an 84 stroke rally in the final(& this was indoor carpet!)

here are some excerpts from an article on the '77 WCT Finals:

At a time when tennis is awash—not to say drowning—in Grand Slams. Grand Prix, Heavyweight Championships, Las Vegas Showdowns and highly suspect Winner-Take-All television specials, the WCT series offered a degree of logic in the orderly ascent to a "major" championship and was a perfect place for an emergence. The eight qualifiers got to Dallas on points awarded over 12 farflung tournaments—Mexico City, Rotterdam, Birmingham, Ala., etc.—beginning in January. Once in Dallas, the exalted eight were treated with the now customary reverence—they drove Cadillac Sevilles with their names on the doors and lunched at Lamar Hunt's estate—but generally and relatively speaking, they earned it.

Click to expand...

The winner got $100,000 for his time, plus a redundant $1,000 wardrobe and a diamond pendant for his lady. The tournament drew record crowds—capacity of 9,000-plus at SMU's Moody Coliseum for the semifinals and finals—and was well handled. The WCT format still leaves a lot to be desired, however. Not all the best players participate in every one of the 12 preliminary tournaments, and some do not participate at all. Bjorn Borg pulled out in January, "breaking a promise," said Hunt. Connors himself had never played in it before. "But I've heard a lot about it," he said grandly. Hunt perked up Jimbo's ears by guaranteeing him $750,000 just for playing in the WCT series. Because Jimmy's WCT earnings after last weekend totaled $258,123 for the year, that meant only $491,877 would have to come out of Hunt's deep pocket.

I'll tell you, though, the problem I have with the criteria of having to beat a player at his peak (your example of Connors not beating a peak Borg). IMO that has its place when we're trying to judge who the better play was; or analyzing the level of play in particular matches, etc. But who was #1 for the year is primarily about results. It may be that Connors did not defeat Borg at his peak in 1976. But he did defeat him, and the turnaround in the rivalry did not come until the following year. That's the only place it can count. 1977 gives some perspective -- tells us that Borg was almost there in 1976, that the rivalry was about to change. But it didn't change. Not yet. Borg came close -- that's what your arguments point to -- but that's it, just close. That makes him a strong #2 (a close #2).

In 1976 perhaps, as you say, casual observers saw the 3-year-old winning streak that Connors had over Borg and casually judged that Connors was going to be the reigning champion for some time. That always happens; we tend to glorify the champion of the moment. But none of my arguments depend on those casual overheated judgments of the moment. My argument about 1976 is that is was simply close but no cigar. Borg did not start beating Connors until 1977.

As I say, your arguments about level of play carry some weight, for deciding whether Borg was better than Connors. And that criteria -- who was better -- is a factor, for instance when we say that Borg was a better player than Vilas as of 1977. That's great -- but Borg showed it with actual results over Vilas. He's got no victories over Connors in 1976, and if we speculate that in peak form he could have beaten Connors, then we're merely talking about matches that did not occur. If the argument is that he came close, then that's all we have -- close but no cigar. I see no way, with these arguments, to lift Borg over Connors in 1976.

But there may be a way by judging what he did over the course of the year, against other opponents, and comparing it to Jimmy's record. If Hellborg's arguments go down that road, then I might see the logic. But Borg, even then, would be given #1 for the year without any concrete indication that he was better than Connors (in actual matches as they were), and for that reason alone I can't see myself giving him more than a co-#1 for the year. To give it to Borg alone, and leave out the man who beat him every time they met?

Click to expand...

To this point, results matter, not physical condition at the time...it's not hard to say that Bjorn was a better player than Jimbo...but not in 74/75/76...Jimmy pretty much dominated him across surfaces. 12 tournament wins, including the USO, over his rival Borg (on clay) is enough to say he should be #1 for 1976. Bjorn may have had injuries in 76 and 78, for that matter, but they only count the wins for the record, when all is said and done.

Q: would you also elevate Mac over Connors and Lendl in '82, simply because he was the best player of the 3 and perhaps a bit off physically that year? I don't think you can do that.

1983 is actually a very tricky year to rank...4 different slam winners, Mats w/a number of wins but, Mac at the top of the computer...not very clear cut.

And it makes quite a difference for Connors in '77. With the Masters he's got a major in his pocket (and Borg a runner-up showing).

It's not that I think he really is in a three-way tie with Borg and Vilas. I don't. But Connors' record in '77 is stronger than I always assumed it was, just looking at the Slams.

And that's true in general of Jimmy's career. If I had to pick one sujbect on which this board has changed my mind the most, it's his career and his skill: he's stronger than I'd ever given him credit for.

Click to expand...

This is very true. I think Borg being SO great kind of overshadowed Jimmy's accomplishments, which were quite impressive. He kept "accomplishing" long after Bjorn retired...it will take some time for anyone to match/beat his overall # of wins...

Connors was an exceptional strong player. He was unlucky in that his played at the same time as a Borg who could match him easily from the baseline and had some skills Connors didn't have, like a huge serve.

And people forget what a great defensive player he was and who a great lob he had. He also had excellent footwork and speed.

Click to expand...

Unlucky for him, lucky for us. Having Connors, Borg and then Mac playing all at the same time made for some exceptional tennis! Truly, I think Connors enjoyed the competition...he never seemed to have any resentment in regards to Bjorn...shoot, he had enough important wins over him (as well as several painful losses). But, this is what made it a "strong" era...there was not a 100% certainty of who would win when you had those 3 facing off against each other..they were all THAT good!

Take 1982 for example. If Ivan Lendl had won the US Open against Connors then he would be undisputably the best player in the world that year. Just one match made the difference.

McEnroe was a number 3 (not in ATP terms but in realistic terms) to Connors and Lendl that year.

Lendl dominated McEnroe in the head to head - Lendl won all their matches - 4 official ATP sactioned ones + 2 others = 6-0 head to head. Lendl won between 15 to 18 events depending on your counting and McEnroe won between 5 to 7 events depending on your counting. Lendl also dominated McEnroe in the most important tournament they placed against each other - the Masters - in straight sets. Lendl also beat McEnroe in the WCT Finals as well.

Lendl was 2 matches to 1 against Connors that year. In the two matches he won he dominated Connors 6-1, 6-1 and 6-3, 6-1. Connors won 7 ATP Sanctioned events plus 4 other events. Hence a lot less than Lendl. Hence if Lendl had won that one match it would have been clear to everyone that he was a clear cut number 1. Its amazing that it came down to just one match.

Click to expand...

Scary, but true. Ivan was the up and coming guy who had not yet broken thru at the slams...if he had beaten Jimmy, he would've had a strong case. But w/Wimby and USO in his pocket, no way that Connors would be denied that year...it was too good of a comeback [since many assumed he was DOA and Mac was now ascendent]

Tennis de France would be a good authority but you seem unsure about their vote. The ATP Players poll: CyBorg covered the reasons to be skeptical about it.

Click to expand...

I think Borgforever is right about Tennis de France but have not checked, either. It seems clear enough that the majority of informed opinion was for Connors as number 1.

CyBorg’s objections to ‘counting’ the ATP Players poll are good ones, but although it's true that Connors was widely disliked and that may have affected the voting, isn't that speculation only, albeit reasonable speculation? No reason not to cite the vote and add it to Borg’s side of the ledger, unless there’s evidence that the vote was tilted to Borg out of animus against Connors. It’s not decisive, in any event.

To this point, results matter, not physical condition at the time...

Click to expand...

True -- up to a point. I would think that a player’s condition is part of the context of those results?

...it will take some time for anyone to match/beat his overall # of wins...

Click to expand...

Given the current structure of the schedule, I’m not sure it’s possible for any top player to match that number, whatever the duration of his career.

I've learned a lot from reading this thread and would like to thank all the contributors.

At least two posters have said that a Masters tournament in January should not count for the previous calendar year, and I can't think of a better thread to debate that question.

In '83 it's critical, because if the Masters is counted as the true fourth major, then McEnroe has two majors, Wilander only one. I've already shown that a lot of people saw that tournament as huge -- and it was indisputably the biggest tournament indoors, which is an important thing to look at (particularly if Mats gets credit, as he often does, for his surface variety that year; you've also got to look at his weak surfaces).

Even it's it's only the fifth biggest tournament, that's a lot of weight in McEnroe's corner.

I'm going to make the case that a January Masters did count for the previous calendar year and that we should count it that way, but it's debateable. The ITF lists the Masters tournament of January 1984, for example, as 1984. The ATP counts it as the 1983 Masters -- and Bud Collins in his book continues to treat those Masters tournaments from January as counting for the previous calendar year.

The calendar by itself is not a decisive argument, because some Australian Opens have started in December and carried over into January. I know the 1975 final was played on New Year's Day. So just because most of the tournament was played in 1974, does not mean that that the first six rounds should be left as part of 1974 season. It was clearly a 1975 tournament: the calendar by itself can't definitely decide what season a tournament belongs to.

The problem I have with counting the January 1984 Masters as part of the 1984 season is that the players themselves went into it thinking that it could potentially settle the question of #1 for 1983. It was thought of as a season-ending championship, even if there were questions about its exact importance (it did not count in the computer rankings, for example). And a season-ending championship is what the Masters was earlier when it was held in December; that's what the tournament's successor is today, a season-ending event. Is the date of January by itself enough to make those few editions in the late 70s and 80s into season-opening championships? Not in my opinion.

And if we do treat them as season-openers according to our own choice, what I'd like to see is some source from the time that did the same. Did anyone go into the January 1984 Masters thinking that it had no bearing on the 1983 season, that the new season was simply getting underway? That would be important to know, because if Wilander, for example, thought that way, then his loss to McEnroe takes on a new light.

However that would not change the fact that both McEnroe and Wilander knew that they were in a tight race; they knew that for a lot of people (at least) the Masters was part of the 1983 season and would decide which of them was #1. So even if someone played the tournament thinking it wasn't important, that would not change the fact that expectations were on him from other people. The pressure was there, regardless of what any single player thought.

So I'd like to see more sources about the Masters, from that time period.

Click to expand...

The Masters in January is always the end of the year for the tennis season. There is no doubt that the Masters counts for the previous months. Therefore the 1984 Master in January counts for the 1983 Tennis season.

In another debate for 1964 between Laver and Rosewall. Andrew Tas has Rosewall winning 10 tournaments plus one shared in 26 attempts. So perhaps that is where McCauley found 11 tournament victories for Rosewall. Rosewall won one major and had a record of 69-30 for the year.

Laver won two majors and won 11 tournaments in 28 attempts. Laver had a record of 81-27 for the year. I think overall Laver was number one but I wouldn't be too upset at the co ranking of number since it was official that Rosewall was number one.

To play Dallas, you had to accumulate enough points on the WCT circuit to finish in the top 8. It wasn't an invitation only event or something.
Look at Connors' WCT schedule that year, he didn't play many events. He didn't qualify for Dallas in '74 or '75 either.

Click to expand...

I am aware of this. Connors was not top eight going into Dallas though? Even after winning Philadelphia? I assumed he was.

I think Borgforever is right about Tennis de France but have not checked, either. It seems clear enough that the majority of informed opinion was for Connors as number 1.

CyBorg’s objections to ‘counting’ the ATP Players poll are good ones, but although it's true that Connors was widely disliked and that may have affected the voting, isn't that speculation only, albeit reasonable speculation? No reason not to cite the vote and add it to Borg’s side of the ledger, unless there’s evidence that the vote was tilted to Borg out of animus against Connors. It’s not decisive, in any event.

Click to expand...

It is speculation, but it is in the service of criticizing the claim. I never made the claim that Connors was widely disliked by the players, as if it was fact.

Rather it was the claim that the players vote was in some way impartial that I objected to, as players are not obligated to vote without bias. And bias they probably had. But I can't prove much beyond that, nor do I care to.

In 1976 I have Borg with 6 tournament wins and 11 losses and Connors with 12 tournament wins and 6 losses. If these stats are accurate then I see Connors as no.1 on his own for 1976 also considering his wins over Borg that year.

borgforever you are rude arrogant man. and you need lessons in manners and your arrogant tone is a disgrace. as far as carlo is concerned he was rightly criticised for his rudeness and arrogance about his world ranking methodolgy; he stated the rudeness about me before i did and used bad language . i only attack someone if they are bad mannerred first like you and carlo.

Click to expand...

I think BF had a bad day. It was unlike him to get so riled up.

I'll always defend his honesty and good will, even when I'll be less forgiving of certain of his arguments (though I probably agree with most).

BF lays the cards on the table every time, which is why I like him. He is never pretentious and as such can be an easy target of those eager to accuse him of bias. But when one posts so passionately about a topic, one will sometimes get overly emotional and that will rub some people the wrong way.

Let's appreciate him for the way he is and hope that he continues to grace us with his presence. A little bit of rudeness from this or other party I'm sure won't kill anymore. Let's shake that off and move on.

It is speculation, but it is in the service of criticizing the claim. I never made the claim that Connors was widely disliked by the players, as if it was fact.

Rather it was the claim that the players vote was in some way impartial that I objected to, as players are not obligated to vote without bias. And bias they probably had. But I can't prove much beyond that, nor do I care to.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying, CyBorg. As noted, I think speculation is just fine and part of what discussion boards are for. It is a minor point and I don’t mean to make too much of it, but I don’t think anybody claimed that the vote of the ATP players was entirely disinterested – human beings do the voting and there are few votes (or opinions) completely without bias of some kind. You could obligate the players to vote 'impartially' but it's unlikely that would stop anyone determined to do otherwise.

(I also take the opportunity to note that there’s a typo in my post. It should read “although if it’s true” not “although it’s true.”)

Not exactly. Laver played, well past his prime, the Centurion Wimbledon 1977, to honor the event. He lost to Stockton, a good player at that time in 4. It shows, that Laver at that time did not look at his percentages, but more on the game itself.

We can debate about who was the number one in 1976.
But it seems evident that, no matter how many things a person knows about tennis, no matter how this person usually behaves on the board, sometimes a person is just not using a honest logic. That is the case.

The 1983 is actually more interesting than i supposed before reading this thread. Also 2003 is really complicated. For me Laver 1st in 1964/65.

1983 is actually a very tricky year to rank...4 different slam winners, Mats w/a number of wins but, Mac at the top of the computer...not very clear cut.

Click to expand...

I do think that 1983 is less clear-cut than ’76. I’ve been talking about a lot of the similarities but there are some important differences. Borg’s win/loss record is poorer than Connors’, while Wilander’s is better than McEnroe’s. Borg has no wins over Connors, while Wilander went 3-1 vs. Mac. It was an important loss at the Masters, but still, 3-1 is 3-1.

There are several years on Hoodjem’s list where the most consistent player of the year, the player with the biggest numbers, is not #1 for the year (Muster in 1995 might be the clearest case; or Lendl 'in '82). The big events are still the big events, and McEnroe has Wimbledon, the Masters, and the WCT Finals – with wins over Lendl in all three, plus a win over Wilander in New York. Wilander’s biggest win was at the AO, and he won 8 other titles for the year; one or more of those might have had a draw to stack up against the Dallas event, but none were as big as Wimbledon or the Masters.

So I tend to look at 1983 as one of those years where the “veteran” (if we can call John that) was not as consistent, day in and day out, as a new young rival, and indeed had trouble beating him in direct meetings, but still edged him out 2-1 in majors (or the equivalent).

Wilander’s numbers in 1983 are definitely impressive. But what I remember is that it wasn’t until 1988 that people felt he’d really made a commitment to reach the top and broken through his confidence issues. I remember watching matches, listening to commentators talk about McEnroe’s criticism of Wilander: I believe John said somewhere that Mats wanted to get to #1 through the back door. The criticism was that he didn’t seem to want to take the prize (or didn’t believe he could).

And you’ve got to remember, Wilander at the end of ’83 was only 19. Who else on Hoodjem’s list is that young? Just looking over the list quickly, I don’t think anybody (Hewitt was almost 21 at the end of 2001).

It takes some maturity to really reach the top of the game. At 19 you can be skilled and consistent (and in particular, a great clay-courter), but maturity is still some way off. At 19 you haven’t even accumulated much experience, and that’s what mature world-beaters have: they fight their way to the top, and they’ve pocketed plenty of valuable lessons along the way. At 19 you’ve barely had any time to do more than make a splash.

And Wilander’s accomplishments in ’83 still show some immaturity. On his best surface he lost a Slam final to Yannick Noah in straight sets, and I just can’t see how that would have happened to him in later years.

So I think Wilander in ’83 was a LITTLE like Lendl’s case in ’82: sterling overall numbers, but something still missing.

And I realize all of this comes under the heading of “intangibles.” That’s fine with me, because I think sometimes stats don’t tell the whole story (Muster in 1995, again).

And falling back on stats, I still think McEnroe has the edge in majors in ’83.

I do think that 1983 is less clear-cut than ’76. I’ve been talking about a lot of the similarities but there are some important differences. Borg’s win/loss record is poorer than Connors’, while Wilander’s is better than McEnroe’s. Borg has no wins over Connors, while Wilander went 3-1 vs. Mac. It was an important loss at the Masters, but still, 3-1 is 3-1.

There are several years on Hoodjem’s list where the most consistent player of the year, the player with the biggest numbers, is not #1 for the year (Muster in 1995 might be the clearest case; or Lendl 'in '82). The big events are still the big events, and McEnroe has Wimbledon, the Masters, and the WCT Finals – with wins over Lendl in all three, plus a win over Wilander in New York. Wilander’s biggest win was at the AO, and he won 8 other titles for the year; one or more of those might have had a draw to stack up against the Dallas event, but none were as big as Wimbledon or the Masters.

So I tend to look at 1983 as one of those years where the “veteran” (if we can call John that) was not as consistent, day in and day out, as a new young rival, and indeed had trouble beating him in direct meetings, but still edged him out 2-1 in majors (or the equivalent).

Wilander’s numbers in 1983 are definitely impressive. But what I remember is that it wasn’t until 1988 that people felt he’d really made a commitment to reach the top and broken through his confidence issues. I remember watching matches, listening to commentators talk about McEnroe’s criticism of Wilander: I believe John said somewhere that Mats wanted to get to #1 through the back door. The criticism was that he didn’t seem to want to take the prize (or didn’t believe he could).

And you’ve got to remember, Wilander at the end of ’83 was only 19. Who else on Hoodjem’s list is that young? Just looking over the list quickly, I don’t think anybody (Hewitt was almost 21 at the end of 2001).

It takes some maturity to really reach the top of the game. At 19 you can be skilled and consistent (and in particular, a great clay-courter), but maturity is still some way off. At 19 you haven’t even accumulated much experience, and that’s what mature world-beaters have: they fight their way to the top, and they’ve pocketed plenty of valuable lessons along the way. At 19 you’ve barely had any time to do more than make a splash.

And Wilander’s accomplishments in ’83 still show some immaturity. On his best surface he lost a Slam final to Yannick Noah in straight sets, and I just can’t see how that would have happened to him in later years.

So I think Wilander in ’83 was a LITTLE like Lendl’s case in ’82: sterling overall numbers, but something still missing.

And I realize all of this comes under the heading of “intangibles.” That’s fine with me, because I think sometimes stats don’t tell the whole story (Muster in 1995, again).

And falling back on stats, I still think McEnroe has the edge in majors in ’83.

Click to expand...

Even though Wimbledon was a much more important title than the Australian Open in 1983 I just find it very difficult to belittle the achievement of defeating McEnroe and Lendl in the SF and F respectively. I'm one of those people who count the Jan84 Masters as part of 1984 so McEnroe's claim is weakened (maybe subconsciously I'm not all that keen on giving 1983 to McEnroe over Wilander).

After the 1983 AO McEnroe did call Wilander "the man to beat". That's hardly evidence but, if I haven't taken it out of context, it does show that McEnroe did not consider himself the no.1 player at that time.

in 1976 connors did not attempt to qualify for dallas wct finals. you had to play 8 wct events to have a good chance of qualifying. connors only played 2 wct events instead along with nastase he played the IPA circuit playing 5 events.

in 1983 i give the nod probably to wilander. mCENROE WITH HIS WIMLEDON , masters and wct titles had the better major record against wilander's aussie win and french runner up. wilander had the better tournament record outside the majors with 8 other wins (plus an unbeaten run in the davis cup) compared to only 4 for mcenroe. he also has the 3-1 head to head lead over mcenroe. Wilander leads clearly in 2 of the 3 statistics with mcenroe ahead in only one

The H2H doesn't matter much in this particular case for these reasons:

* Borg won the biggest. Connors was in the field and sunk. And Borg's triumph-style and stats are still unsurpassed. A more glorious triumph at the established biggest stage in the world. Connors lost to the man Borg crushed.

* Federer's H2H against Rafa during some of his peak years look like Borg Connors in 1976 but there's no disputing that Roger was No. 1 and won the biggest tourneys and beat the other guys that took out Rafa. There's a lot of nuance...

Click to expand...

umm, but rafa never had a year where he won nearly twice the no of tournaments as fed, won as many major events as him while leading the H2H and still ended up no2, try again

Not exactly. Laver played, well past his prime, the Centurion Wimbledon 1977, to honor the event. He lost to Stockton, a good player at that time in 4. It shows, that Laver at that time did not look at his percentages, but more on the game itself.

Click to expand...

That Wimbledon was interesting from several points of view. According to Bud Collins and John Newcombe, Laver was playing excellent tennis. Newcombe was Laver's partner in doubles that year and they lost to Reissen and Tanner in five sets in the first round. Laver apparently kept them both in the match by playing fantastic tennis.

Laver won his first round match easily and led Stockton 6-3 4-1 in the second set but lost the match.

I think of that tournament in some ways as the passing of the torch of one great serve and volley lefthander to another great serve and volley lefthander. Rod Laver to John McEnroe. I'm not 100% certain but I think it was the only tournament in which McEnroe and Laver were in the same draw. Wouldn't it have been great if by the luck of the draw Laver played McEnroe?

This list of "majors" suggests some interesting conclusions:
1983--McEnroe alone at no. 1 with 1.5 points versus Wilander with 0.5 points
1976--Connors with 1.5 points versus Borg with with 1.5 points, leading to a tie at no. 1
1975--Ashe alone at no. 1 with 1.5 points

But it also seems to lead to some narrow (and thus not comprehensive) results, for instance
1971--Rosewall with 1.5 versus Newcombe with 1 and Laver with 0.5 points
1977--Vilas with 1.5 versus Borg with 1 point and Connors with 1 point.

It suggests to me that, while majors are a good indicator, we need to look at more than just major tournaments, also minor tournaments, total year record, Davis Cup play, and head-to heads.

1977
"Tennis Magazine (France) ranked Borg #1 because he won Wimbledon and he had also defeated Vilas 3 times out of 3; while World Tennis or Michel Sutter considered Vilas the best one because among other reasons he won 46 matches in a row (even 50 including the Rye tournament excluded in ATP statistics) and 16 titles (or 17 Rye included); the ATP itself awarded Borg "Player of The Year" contradicting its computer ranking (Connors N° 1)."

1977
"Tennis Magazine (France) ranked Borg #1 because he won Wimbledon and he had also defeated Vilas 3 times out of 3; while World Tennis or Michel Sutter considered Vilas the best one because among other reasons he won 46 matches in a row (even 50 including the Rye tournament excluded in ATP statistics) and 16 titles (or 17 Rye included); the ATP itself awarded Borg "Player of The Year" contradicting its computer ranking (Connors N° 1)."

The page was last edited Nov. 1.

Click to expand...

My initial feeling for 1976 is that Connors was number one for the year but it's fairly close. Borg won Wimbledon and the WCT Championship which were two tournaments of high prestige. Connors won the US Open over Borg in four sets.

Connors won more tournaments and had the superior won-lost record. Borg won seven tournaments. So it comes down to this, does the two top tournaments that Borg won overcome Connors one major tournament victory and better record in other tournaments. Wimbledon is of slightly more prestige than the US Open also.

It's close but I think Connors wins out by a fraction. I can see it going either way however.

Situations like this can be odd. For example I think Arthur Ashe is number one for 1975 if you go by the way they pick number one. Ashe won Wimbledon and the US Open and won a number of other tournaments for that year. I also think that clearly Jimmy Connors was the best player in the world for 1975 as far as actual tennis strength is concerned.

Just a thought for discussion. It occurred to me while I was writing my post about 1976 and the Connors-Borg debate. Borg probably had the better record in big tournaments but Connors was better in my opinion overall for the year. So I thought I would expand it to discussing lifetime records of players.

A lot of us put a great deal of weight on the amount of majors won by player in evaluating the player's record. For example one of the top reasons Pete Sampras is considered all time great is because of his fantastic record in the majors.

How much weight do we put into majors won as opposed to total tournaments won? Sampras and Lendl is an excellent example. Sampras has won about 64 tournaments in his career but Pete was awesome in the majors with 14 victories. Lendl frankly did not do as well in the majors as you would expect a player of his ability. Lendl won 8 majors and reached 19 finals in the majors. Clearly Sampras is far superior here.

Yet Lendl is estimated to have won about 140 tournaments in his career and Sampras won about half as much.

Sampras is almost universally considered to be superior to Lendl and he very well may be.

My question is how much do we put into victories in regular tournament? What is enough to overcome a great advantage in majors?

It seems to me that Lendl has an awesome lifetime record but his flaws are his many losses in major finals and his inability to win Wimbledon.

Two great players. One is much more prolific in the majors and the other in regular tournaments. What pulls more weight?

It's very rare that you have a Laver, Borg, Rosewall and Tilden that do well in both categories. That's why they are GOAT candidates.

1977
"Tennis Magazine (France) ranked Borg #1 because he won Wimbledon and he had also defeated Vilas 3 times out of 3; while World Tennis or Michel Sutter considered Vilas the best one because among other reasons he won 46 matches in a row (even 50 including the Rye tournament excluded in ATP statistics) and 16 titles (or 17 Rye included); the ATP itself awarded Borg "Player of The Year" contradicting its computer ranking (Connors N° 1)."

If the tournaments counted for points the way they do today Vilas would have been number 1 in 77 because he played and won a lot more tournaments than Borg. However, in that case, who knows how players would have structured their years in those conditions. Borg might have played more tournaments. There are quite a few reasons to give Borg the player of the year award in 77 (fewer losses, his record against Vilas, the higher quality of his tourament wins)

So it comes down to this, does the two top tournaments that Borg won overcome Connors one major tournament victory and better record in other tournaments.

Click to expand...

I think, though, that there's no need to restrict Connors to one major tournament if we give Borg an event (Dallas) that lies outside of the Slams. If we go outside that limit, I don't know how you can not consider the U.S. Pro Indoor in Philadelphia. I'm not saying it needs to be considered every bit the equal of Dallas, of course, but it's certainly the tournament that comes next to mind after Dallas.

And in '76 the Dallas draw did not include Connors. Philadelphia had both Connors and Borg in the draw.

So I don't see much difference between the two men in the biggest tournaments. What separates them for me is their H2H and Jimmy's overall win/loss record.

Actually Bud Collins writes in his book that most authorities gave the year to Borg (and I have a question about the Wikipedia entry above, because it says "World Tennis or Michael Sutter," implying that they're the same source).

Bud himself emphasizes a three-way race for #1, and I think his descriptions of the year are interesting (and fair):

Borg won Wimbledon and had the most solid record, including winning margins against both his rivals. Vilas won the French and U.S. Opens and fashioned the longest winning streak of the 10 years of the Open Era. Connors won the WCT Finals in Dallas and the Grand Prix Masters, and was runner-up at Wimbledon and Forest Hills. The debate as to who was No. 1 continued right through the Masters, which, because of U.S. television considerations, was moved back by new Grand Prix sponsor Colgate Palmolive to the first week of January 1978.

... Vilas dominated the Grand Prix point standing, winning the $300,000 prize earmarked as the top share of the $1.5-million bonus pool put up by Colgate. On the year, Vilas won a record 17 tournaments and $800,642 in prize money -- more than he had earned in five previous pro seasons. He played the most ambitious tournament schedule of any of the top men and finished with a 145-14 record, including Davis Cup matches.

... But even though World Tennis magazine declared him No. 1 for the year, most other authorities disagreed and bestowed that mythical honor on Borg, who, top-seeded, defaulted to Dick Stockton, 3-6, 6-4, 1-0, in the fourth round of the U.S. Open with a shoulder injury. The 21-year-old Swede had the best winning percentage for the season -- .920, on a record of 81-7. He won 13 of the 20 tournaments he played. Including the Masters -- played in 1978, but considered the climax of the 1977 season -- Borg was 3-0 over Vilas ....

Actually Bud Collins writes in his book that most authorities gave the year to Borg (and I have a question about the Wikipedia entry above, because it says "World Tennis or Michael Sutter," implying that they're the same source).

Bud himself emphasizes a three-way race for #1, and I think his descriptions of the year are interesting (and fair):

Krosero, it may be interesting to note, that the year descriptions in Bud Collins Encyclopedias are not all made by himself, but for the greater part made by Barry Lorge, who was the editor of Tennis at that time around 1977. 1977 is a most difficult year to rank, thats for sure (to cite a famous Borg-phrase). When we discussed the rankings on the wikipedia- article, if i remember right, we concluded in a consensus of co-ranking Borg and Vilas as Nr. 1, as we did in many other problematic cases. And Sutter had nothing to do with World Tennis. I still have the World Tennis edition with Vilas in a green- white Taccini-outfit on the front cover somewhere in some old suit cases, i think, they had a panel vote in the mid 70s, up to that time McCauley was the chief ranking specialist of World Tennis.

Krosero, it may be interesting to note, that the year descriptions in Bud Collins Encyclopedias are not all made by himself, but for the greater part made by Barry Lorge, who was the editor of Tennis at that time around 1977. 1977 is a most difficult year to rank, thats for sure (to cite a famous Borg-phrase). When we discussed the rankings on the wikipedia- article, if i remember right, we concluded in a consensus of co-ranking Borg and Vilas as Nr. 1, as we did in many other problematic cases. And Sutter had nothing to do with World Tennis. I still have the World Tennis edition with Vilas in a green- white Taccini-outfit on the front cover somewhere in some old suit cases, i think, they had a panel vote in the mid 70s, up to that time McCauley was the chief ranking specialist of World Tennis.

Click to expand...

thanks -- so we'll have to speak of Collins/Lorge when we use that book (or at least remember that Lorge was part of it).

And now I wonder if that helps to explain the tension in the 1983 chapter. On the one hand it says that McEnroe settled the matter of #1 at the Masters (and Bud himself in January 1984 seemed unequivocal after McEnroe won the title). On the other hand it says that for "breadth of accomplishment" Wilander was "Player of the Year."

I didn't know we had a debate here about the Wikipedia rankings, I must have missed it.

Not here, but there were extensive discussions on the wikipedia discussion websides in the process of the shaping of the year-ranking article there, which was to great parts written by Carlo Coloussi. In Bud Collins encyclopedias the pre WWII biography articles were written by Allison Danzig. In the new edition History of Tennis, there is often no mentioning of this contributions, although they are the same articles. So it is no wonder, that we find some inconsistencies.

After the 1983 AO McEnroe did call Wilander "the man to beat". That's hardly evidence but, if I haven't taken it out of context, it does show that McEnroe did not consider himself the no.1 player at that time.

Click to expand...

This isn't real evidence (the old "Mac says") and it is probably taken out of context.

Wilander is perhaps closer to Mac in '83 than originally thought, but I still see Mac as #1 for the year.

First of all, the Australian was not on equal footing with Wimbledon. This event was sahara for years and years and was, for the first time in a while, reasonably well-attended. But it took a few years for the Australian to become a true major. I think it was also behind the Masters in prestige.

For Mac, (among his 7 overall titles) his wins in Philly, Dallas, Forest Hills and Wembley qualify to me as masters equivalent wins (if you don't trust me, they count as such in SgtJohn's thread). That's four, three on carpet and one on clay. Add the majors equivalents in Masters Cup and Wimbledon and you have six crucial titles won on three different surfaces.

Wilander won 9 titles. Okay, very good. But some of these aren't much... Portugal Open Lisbon, Aix-en_provence, Bastad, Geneva, Barcelona. The leaves us with two Masters series adjusted - Monte Carlo and Cincinnatti. Stockholm is somewhere in between all of this. Along with the Australian Open that's three crucial events on three surfaces.

It's a nice year, but Wilander's great number of titles gives him only a superficial edge, because some of the wins were in minor events. The H2H I think is somewhat of an edge, but one has to be careful with this due to the potential redundancy in treating the h2h as a separate category from other results. I agree with krosero that the h2h is a nice tiebreaker in cases of close ties.

If the tournaments counted for points the way they do today Vilas would have been number 1 in 77 because he played and won a lot more tournaments than Borg. However, in that case, who knows how players would have structured their years in those conditions. Borg might have played more tournaments. There are quite a few reasons to give Borg the player of the year award in 77 (fewer losses, his record against Vilas, the higher quality of his tourament wins)

Click to expand...

If the tour was scheduled the way it is today, Vilas would not have been able to 1) play as many clay tournaments, 2) play and win so many turkey tournaments. He would have had to 1) play a lot more important carpet/hard events, 2) compete consistently against Borg.

Thank you, yes, I think so !
I think even that I know very very good about tennis. And I think that a guy who wins 2 Grand Slams, and made 1 Final, in a year, is the n°1. I don't think it's absurd to say that.
And I think it's absurd to say "if Borg played the French ...", "if Borg didn't leave the US Open ...", "if ....". If Borotra was still alive, maybe he will beat Federer. So, for me, Borotra is the n°1 in 2009.

Wilander is perhaps closer to Mac in '83 than originally thought, but I still see Mac as #1 for the year.

First of all, the Australian was not on equal footing with Wimbledon. This event was sahara for years and years and was, for the first time in a while, reasonably well-attended. But it took a few years for the Australian to become a true major. I think it was also behind the Masters in prestige.

For Mac, (among his 7 overall titles) his wins in Philly, Dallas, Forest Hills and Wembley qualify to me as masters equivalent wins (if you don't trust me, they count as such in SgtJohn's thread). That's four, three on carpet and one on clay. Add the majors equivalents in Masters Cup and Wimbledon and you have six crucial titles won on three different surfaces.

Wilander won 9 titles. Okay, very good. But some of these aren't much... Portugal Open Lisbon, Aix-en_provence, Bastad, Geneva, Barcelona. The leaves us with two Masters series adjusted - Monte Carlo and Cincinnatti. Stockholm is somewhere in between all of this. Along with the Australian Open that's three crucial events on three surfaces.

It's a nice year, but Wilander's great number of titles gives him only a superficial edge, because some of the wins were in minor events. The H2H I think is somewhat of an edge, but one has to be careful with this due to the potential redundancy in treating the h2h as a separate category from other results. I agree with krosero that the h2h is a nice tiebreaker in cases of close ties.

I don't see a close tie here.

Click to expand...

It's a bit misleading to say one tournament is equivalent to a Masters event and another one isn't. Just look at the draws and come to your own conclusions which was better. IMO Monte Carlo and Cincinnati had stronger fields than any tournament McEnroe won outside of Wimbledon while Forest Hills was missing the 2 best clay-court players in the world (Wilander and Noah). That in itself lowers its status in my eyes

Thank you, yes, I think so !
I think even that I know very very good about tennis. And I think that a guy who wins 2 Grand Slams, and made 1 Final, in a year, is the n°1. I don't think it's absurd to say that.
And I think it's absurd to say "if Borg played the French ...", "if Borg didn't leave the US Open ...", "if ....". If Borotra was still alive, maybe he will beat Federer. So, for me, Borotra is the n°1 in 2009.

Click to expand...

And your logic says that 1 bag of money equal another. It doesn't matter that one contains £1000000 and the other 1 penny.

And your logic says that 1 bag of money equal another. It doesn't matter that one contains £1000000 and the other 1 penny.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. Do you mean that Wimbledon is the most important tournament, so Borg won Wimbledon and is the n°1 ?
OK, so it's simple : every year, the guy who wins Wimbledon is the n°1. Krajicek is the n°1 in 1996. And Ivanisevic in 2001.

My initial feeling for 1976 is that Connors was number one for the year but it's fairly close. Borg won Wimbledon and the WCT Championship which were two tournaments of high prestige. Connors won the US Open over Borg in four sets.

Connors won more tournaments and had the superior won-lost record. Borg won seven tournaments. So it comes down to this, does the two top tournaments that Borg won overcome Connors one major tournament victory and better record in other tournaments. Wimbledon is of slightly more prestige than the US Open also.

It's close but I think Connors wins out by a fraction.

Situations like this can be odd. For example I think Arthur Ashe is number one for 1975 if you go by the way they pick number one. Ashe won Wimbledon and the US Open and won a number of other tournaments for that year. I also think that clearly Jimmy Connors was the best player in the world for 1975 as far as actual tennis strength is concerned.

Click to expand...

actually, in 75 Orantes won the USO over Connors; in 75 Connors was runner up at the AO to Newk, Wimby to Ashe and USO to orantes....not a great year for him

Just a thought for discussion. It occurred to me while I was writing my post about 1976 and the Connors-Borg debate. Borg probably had the better record in big tournaments but Connors was better in my opinion overall for the year. So I thought I would expand it to discussing lifetime records of players.

A lot of us put a great deal of weight on the amount of majors won by player in evaluating the player's record. For example one of the top reasons Pete Sampras is considered all time great is because of his fantastic record in the majors.

How much weight do we put into majors won as opposed to total tournaments won? Sampras and Lendl is an excellent example. Sampras has won about 64 tournaments in his career but Pete was awesome in the majors with 14 victories. Lendl frankly did not do as well in the majors as you would expect a player of his ability. Lendl won 8 majors and reached 19 finals in the majors. Clearly Sampras is far superior here.

Yet Lendl is estimated to have won about 140 tournaments in his career and Sampras won about half as much.

Sampras is almost universally considered to be superior to Lendl and he very well may be.

My question is how much do we put into victories in regular tournament? What is enough to overcome a great advantage in majors?

It seems to me that Lendl has an awesome lifetime record but his flaws are his many losses in major finals and his inability to win Wimbledon.

Two great players. One is much more prolific in the majors and the other in regular tournaments. What pulls more weight?

It's very rare that you have a Laver, Borg, Rosewall and Tilden that do well in both categories. That's why they are GOAT candidates.

Click to expand...

Although I give a slight edge to Sampras, it is not like Ivan is far behind him in skills. And, Ivan far better than Pete on clay than Pete's edge over Ivan on grass. Never thought I'd be defending Ivan, but let's be frank...his losses in the GS finals are to the very top tier guys...Borg, Mac, Connors, Wilander...frankly, better tougher competition than some of Sampras's opponents [not all, mind you, just some...Pioline, anyone?] I've also stated in other threads, his skills on grass were not awful, but he was very unlucky at Wimby...he simply ran into the guys who were better on grass (Mac, Connors, Edberg, Becker)...again, a very elite group, not a bunch of pikers.

Wilander won 9 titles. Okay, very good. But some of these aren't much... Portugal Open Lisbon, Aix-en_provence, Bastad, Geneva, Barcelona. The leaves us with two Masters series adjusted - Monte Carlo and Cincinnatti. Stockholm is somewhere in between all of this. Along with the Australian Open that's three crucial events on three surfaces.

It's a nice year, but Wilander's great number of titles gives him only a superficial edge, because some of the wins were in minor events.

Click to expand...

Six of his 9 titles were on outdoor clay. He also won on hard court (indoors and outdoors), and had that great win on AO grass, so I don't want to portray him as some kind of clay-court specialist avoiding other surfaces. But it still leaves the bulk of his titles on one surface -- and if he won so often on outdoor clay, it makes his failure at the French all the more conspicuous.

It does remind me a little of '82 when Lendl did so well everywhere, murdering Connors and McEnroe on hard court and all that, but failed in the USO final -- the one match that if he'd won, would have given him the whole year. Same in '83, if Mats had beaten Noah, it would be hard not to give him #1 for the year by himself.

It's not entirely the same, of course. Lendl came away Slam-less in '82, while Wilander has that AO in '83. Lendl played scared when he first met Connors at the USO, and I don't want to say that Wilander played scared against Noah. He didn't -- but I think in both cases there was some immaturity. Both Lendl and Wilander failed to slow down their matches and were essentially swept away by an energetic opponent and a raucous crowd. In later years they learned how to take their time (to the point of abusing the clock, actually), how to figure out opponents, how to draw from experience.

So that's a common element I see in '82 and '83: the young guy beating everybody in the smaller tournaments but having less success in the biggest tournaments (the kind where you face raucous crowds in big stadiums -- and in which you face bigger expectations). You see some of that today, I think, with Murray.

In '88, when Wilander faced another flashy Frenchman in the RG final, his concentration and gameplan were perfect, nearly impossible to disrupt. When he faced Cash in Australia, and Lendl in a tumultuous USO final, same thing -- he knew what to do, and had enough experience behind him already.

I do admit that Wilander showed exceptional maturity in '83 for his age. But imo there wasn't enough of a veteran's clutch when the pressure was greatest. In the three biggest events of the year, he has:

- a straight set loss on his best surface
- a very early loss at Wimbledon
- a straight set loss to Lendl in the USO quarters

If the Masters is counted as the next biggest event, he also lost there, in two straight sets.

I'm not saying that immaturity by itself counts as a negative when you're looking at results. What I'm wondering about is how immature Wilander still was in '83 and how much that had to do with his poor results in the biggest tournaments -- his inability to put the year firmly in his grasp, for example, in that RG final.

It's a bit misleading to say one tournament is equivalent to a Masters event and another one isn't. Just look at the draws and come to your own conclusions which was better. IMO Monte Carlo and Cincinnati had stronger fields than any tournament McEnroe won outside of Wimbledon while Forest Hills was missing the 2 best clay-court players in the world (Wilander and Noah). That in itself lowers its status in my eyes

Click to expand...

That's a fair point. I suppose a really rigorous analysis of these players' years would involve a careful consideration of the draws of these specific events. I'll try to give these draws a look in the next few days as time allows.

I don't understand. Do you mean that Wimbledon is the most important tournament, so Borg won Wimbledon and is the n°1 ?
OK, so it's simple : every year, the guy who wins Wimbledon is the n°1. Krajicek is the n°1 in 1996. And Ivanisevic in 2001.

Click to expand...

Most of your points about 1977 are terribly reductive and difficult to take seriously.

Although I give a slight edge to Sampras, it is not like Ivan is far behind him in skills. And, Ivan far better than Pete on clay than Pete's edge over Ivan on grass. Never thought I'd be defending Ivan, but let's be frank...his losses in the GS finals are to the very top tier guys...Borg, Mac, Connors, Wilander...frankly, better tougher competition than some of Sampras's opponents [not all, mind you, just some...Pioline, anyone?] I've also stated in other threads, his skills on grass were not awful, but he was very unlucky at Wimby...he simply ran into the guys who were better on grass (Mac, Connors, Edberg, Becker)...again, a very elite group, not a bunch of pikers.

Click to expand...

All Very True. Ivan played much of his career against some of the best Grass players ever in some peoples eyes. He was a great clay courter during his peak, amazing indoors, not to shabby on hardcourts either. Sad thing is he was surrounded, like you said, by so many other greats that he was never going to win everything and now looks like a failure to some because of his record in GS finals. He was a great player, have watched quite a few of his matches on tape, and he definitely deserves credit as a great, well more credit then I have seen some give him in the past.